Britain and America

The Petraeus/ Bush surge is delivering results in Iraq

Three weeks ago BritainAndAmerica reported that the BBC had noticed progress in Iraq.  Another unlikely source delivered the same message in yesterday's New York Times.  An article by two Brookings Institute fellows - hardly a right-wing, neocon think tank and previously critical of operations in Iraq - included the following key thoughts:

Petraeus has transformed US troop morale: "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.  After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.  Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

Iraqi troops are becoming more reliable and more ethnically mixed: "American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).  In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab."

American troops aren't just clearing areas - they're now holding them, too: "The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.  In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so."

Excesses by extremists are leading Iraqis to turn to US troops: "A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.  These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help."

Iraq's politicians continue to disappoint but the effort should be sustained until 2008: "In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.  How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

Brown and Bush bond at Camp David

A poll last week suggested that by 71% to 15% the British people hoped for more distance in the UK-US relationship but there was little distancing on show at today's Bush-Brown press conference.  The spirit shared by the two leaders was captured in responses to a final question about what might have changed in the special relationship since Tony Blair had left 10 Downing Street.  George W Bush paid tribute to America's "most important bilateral relationship"  and to the optimism and character of Mr Brown.  Gordon Brown's remarks were much less personal but he emphasised that he hoped for a strengthening of the UK-US relationship in the years to come.

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Besides toothpaste? (Laughter.) You want to -- I'll start.    Look, any time you share values the way we share values, it makes it easy to have strategic conversations; it makes it easy to be able to have common ground on which to deal with these problems. You just listed off a lot of problems.    I happen to view them as great opportunities to begin to put conditions in place so that the world looks fundamentally different 50 years from now.

But I would say that the relationship between Great Britain and America is our most important bilateral relationship, for a lot of reasons -- trade. Great Britain has been attacked, we've been attacked, which caused us to lash up our intelligence services like never before. We have common interests throughout the world.

But it's an important relationship primarily because we think the same. We believe in freedom and justice as fundamentals of life. There's no doubt in my mind that freedom is universal; that freedom is a gift to each man, woman and child on the face of the earth, and that with freedom comes peace.    And there's no doubt in my mind those of us who live under free societies have an obligation to work together to promote it. 

Don't expect big policy shifts at first Bush-Brown heads of government meeting

Although George W Bush and Gordon Brown have met before, this weekend sees the new British Prime Minister hold their first full meeting as heads of government.  The two men will spend the weekend at Camp David before a formal press conference on Monday.  Mr Brown then flies on to the United Nations in a deliberate underlining of his commitment to a multilateralist foreign policy.  Journalists will be keen to look for a change in the US-UK relationship that was so close during the Blair years.  Although, as reported, the meeting will likely be more businesslike - because of Mr Brown's style - the new Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have gone out of his way to make it clear that their "commitment to work with the American government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, is resolute."  Don't expect any 'Colgate moments' or any big policy shifts.

Conservatism in America - a report card

Tim Montgomerie writes:

My week in the USA has come to an end and I have just arrived in Ottawa to spend a few days with Canadian Conservatives.  It's then off to Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney to spend some time with Australian conservatives.  I then hope to write a few bird's eye essays on conservatism in the English-speaking world.  Here, in the meantime, are some headline observations about the conservatism in America...

The Bush legacy.  George W Bush's disapproval rating is now at 65%.  Only Nixon - a few days before he resigned - had a worse rating (66%).  The unpopularity of Bush cost the GOP control of the Senate and House last November.  His deep unpopularity is the main reason why the Democrats are expected to win the White House next year.  My own belief is that the Bush Presidency can still claim some big achievements...

• The tax cuts that have powered the American economy and proven 'Laffernomics' again.
• The appointments of Justice Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court and other conservative judges throughout the judicial system.  Appointing John Roberts as Chief Justice may be Bush's greatest legacy.  Scalia and other conservative judges are good at winning arguments but not at building majorities.  Roberts is almost worth two judges because of his gifts of persuasion.
• The cultural impact of the faith-based initiative.  Although the initiative can claim little to zero legislative success it has encouraged American churches and other social entrepreneurs to take their personal responsibilities to the poor more seriously.
• The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Despite the enormous failures associated with both 'liberations' the world is still better off with the Taliban running Afghanistan and Saddam ruling Iraq.  The US military is better equipped than it has ever been.  A big increase in the recruitment of ground troops is underway.

...this is not to deny that there has been incompetence and failure but the Presidency is far from the disaster that its critics claim.

The conservative movement.  The Economist's Adrian Wooldridge worries that the movement has three main problems:

• Social conservatives are disproportionately strong.  There is a danger that culturally conservative issues that benefited the Republicans in the past - eg gay marriage - are going to be surpassed by new 'moral issues' that favour the Democrats.  GOP strategists, for example, fear that Christian conservatives' highly-principled opposition to embryonic stem cell research will be a vote loser when Democrats are promising to clear the obstacles to research that - it is controversially claimed - will cure terrible diseases like Alzheimers.  The Democrats are using more religious language and emphasising 'creation care' and justice issues to attract moderate Christians away from the Republican Party.
• There is an intellectual sluggishness.  Wooldridge is concerned that the right isn't currently matching the intellectual energy of the left.  He asks: "Where are the new ideas on the right? Where are the agenda changing books like Losing Ground?  Where are the young James Q Wilsons and Charles Murrays?  The first-rate books that have appeared—such as Robert Kagan’s Of Paradise and Power—tend to be as much diagnoses of a problem as prescriptions of a solution."
• The Ann Coulterisation of the right.  Tune in to Talk Radio or glance at some of the books that sell well within the American right and there is a worrying level of hysteria that repels mainstream voters.  This is not to say that the Left doesn't have equivalent problems.  Powered by the netroots there is also a Cindy Sheehanisation of the American left.  Ms Sheehan recently announced plans to challenge liberal Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi should the Speaker fail to to introduce articles of impeachment against George W Bush.

There are reasons to be more optimistic, however, about the conservative movement.  Movement organisations like the Heritage Foundation and Manhattan Institute - unlike the Republican Party - are winning record fundraising.

American conservatives - currently depressed by the immigration row, in particular - would do well to remember that most conservative movements around the world (and there aren't many of them) would love to have their movement's achievements.  The dynamism of the US economy, welfare reform and zero tolerance policing are worthy of special highlight. 

Conservatives and government.  One of the big aims of the Bush presidency was the attempt to end the anti-government rhetoric of the Republicans.  In 2000 he abandoned the long-standing Republican pledge, for example, to abolish the Department of Education.  During his Presidency George W Bush has allowed spending to rise considerably.  This has produced consternation among many diehard conservatives but it is far from clear that there is a big voter appetite for a smaller government.  Bush would almost certainly have lost the 2000 election if he had not produced his own prescription drug benefit to offset the Democrats' earlier and very popular commitment to do the same.  Whilst there was majority opposition to the big government of the sixties and its welfare dependents there is not necessarily opposition to a government that promotes middle America's interests.  Voters still dislike centralism, waste and fiscal ill-discipline but there are serious dangers to any Republican attempts to make big cuts in government programmes.

The 2008 field.  Conservatives are not as enthusiastic about their candidates as Democrats are about theirs.  65% of Republican supporters are happy with their choice of candidates (13% very satisfied) but 83% of Democrats are satisfied (33% very).  But the security issue may yet come to the Republicans' rescue.  In yesterday's Wall Street Journal a progressive commentator, Mark Ribbing, noted that Americans inevitably choose Republicans "in times of perceived peril".  Rudy Giuliani, in particular, has the capacity to polarise the 2008 choice as between a Republican - him - who will keep America safe and a Democrat who won't.  His record of competence and fiscal conservatism will also help him to be seen as an alternative to the weaknesses of George W Bush.  A socially conservative running mate and a promise to appoint judges in the mould of Robert and Alito may help him to overcome the suspicions of socially conservative Republicans but others worried about his personal life and harsh treatment of juniors will not easily support him.  Former White House chief speechwriter Mike Gerson has suggested that Giuliani's views are completely opposed to the Catholic social teaching championed by Bush: "Giuliani is not only pro-choice. He has supported embryonic stem cell research and public funding for abortion. He supports the death penalty. He supports "waterboarding" of terror suspects and seems convinced that the conduct of the war on terrorism has been too constrained. Individually, these issues are debatable. Taken together, they are the exact opposite of Catholic teaching, which calls for a "consistent ethic of life" rather than its consistent devaluation. No one inspired by the social priorities of Pope John Paul II can be encouraged by the political views of Rudy Giuliani."

Mike Gerson and another former Bush speechwriter - David Frum - will each publish major books on the future of conservatism towards the end of this year.   Frum's book is expected to emphasise security issues.  Gerson's book will focus on the conservative attitude to the scope of government and international justice.  The two books are eagerly awaited by an uncertain and demoralised conservative movement.

Obama needs to raise the stakes if he is to defeat Hillary Clinton

Greetings from Charleston, South Carolina.  This evening Sam Coates and I attended the first Democrat debate of this presidential cycle that was sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.  Here are a few quick observations:

Mixing with people in the debate hall it is clear that Democrats expect to win in 2008.  They believe their field of candidates is very strong.  Giuliani is the only one they have some fear of.

Although John Edwards performed well tonight the race has a two horse quality to it.  At the end of proceedings it was Senators Obama and Clinton who were thronged by the crowds.  They both - particularly Obama - won the most applause and cheers through the evening.  Clinton was always in command of the debate and will still be the frontrunner after tonight.

Iraq is defining this race.  There was no strong sense of a new agenda from tonight.  No grand new Democratic vision for America.  No radical new policies.  When and how to withdraw from Iraq defined the debate and could yet define the Democrats.  There was a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric as a result - and as might be expected - but the Dems won't be running against Bush next year.  The GOP will have a new prince.

Neil Kinnock's plagiarist Joseph Biden was impressive.  Senator Biden kept pointing out that some of his fellow Democrats' plans for immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq were impractical.  It would take at least a year, he said, to withdraw 160,000 troops from Iraq.  It wasn't a crowd pleaser but it has the benefit of being true.

All questions tonight were selected by CNN from 3,000 videos posted on YouTube.  The evening was bigged up as a revolutionary way of reconnecting voters with politicians.  It worked to a significant extent.  Some of the questions asked on the videos were very imaginative.  Nearly all appeared to come from the heart.  CNN did all of the selecting which was a shame.  I would have preferred a process where CNN filtered out videos that were silly, crude or obviously the product of a special interest and then YouTube visitors could have voted for the twenty or so questions they most wanted asked.  That would have added some web-based democracy to tonight's interesting experiment in user-generated content.

In the video below Senator Obama presents his 'let's change the world' message.  My guess is that he'll only beat Clinton if he raises the stakes.  If the election is about competence and a safe pair of hands the former First Lady will probably secure the nomination.  If Barack Obama can persuade people that America really needs a changemaker he might just triumph.  He played safe tonight - emphasising bridge-building and competence.  His video points to an emphasis on ambition that could yet make the difference for his candidacy.

'An Election Like No Other'?

US News & World Report has a cover feature this week which identifies the five factors that purportedly make the 2008 race for the White House "an election like no other":

The changed primary process: historically the primary process - where registered party members in states vote for their preferred nominee - has been an extended affair.  It begins with votes in Iowa and then New Hampshire and the primary votes get gradually bigger and faster thereafter.  The virtue of this timetable was that insurgent candidates without big money could earn traction through low-budget, door-to-door canvassing in the small states and then become competitive against establishment candidates in subsequent states.  There'll be much less opportunity for that in this primary cycle.  Florida, a state rich in electoral college votes, decides its nominees on 29 January 2008 - just seven days after New Hampshire.  Then there's the 'megaprimary' one week later when California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and other big states vote.  Only candidates who are by then able to afford a lot of TV, radio and direct mail advertising are likely to prosper.

The candidates: 2008 is the first primary contest for fifty years with no incumbent President or Vice President participating.  That means the race is wide open and the candidates coming forward are often 'firsts'.  Hillary Clinton would be the Oval office's first woman occupant.  Obama the White House's first black resident.  Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon Commander-in-Chief.  The tanking John McCain would be the oldest President elected.  Giuliani - the current GOP frontrunner - would be the most socially liberal nominee for his party in more than a generation.  If the GOP and Democrat candidates aren't intriguing enough for you, there is the possibility of an independent candidacy from New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg.  He hopes to feed on the fact that 67% of voters tell pollsters that they are unhappy with the current two party system.

Demographic changes.  Florida and Ohio have been the must win swing states for both parties in the last two elections but the Democrats see hope in states where the GOP has traditionally been strong.  Virginia, for example, which voted for George W Bush twice, has elected a Democrat Governor and Senator in recent years.  The GOP fear that the loss of Virginia would be the beginning of the reversal of the so-successful 'southern strategy' that Richard Nixon launched in 1968.  Democrat Chair Howard Dean is most hopeful about the rapidly growing Rocky Mountain region.  A big increase in Democrat-leaning Latino voters in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada mean that a total of 29 electoral votes could change from Republican red to Democrat blue.

The internet.  Nobody really understands the ways in which the internet might be important for the election but nearly everyone agrees that the Democrats are generating more enthusiasm from the internet than the Republicans (see the middle column of Facebook/ MySpace/ YouTube stats on TechPresident) and are also raising much more money via the medium - particularly Barack Obama.  If TalkRadio has been a right-wing medium, the internet in America - in marked contrast to the UK - is a largely left-wing phenomenon.

The issues.  The fifth factor that makes 2008 a 'wildcard election' for US News and World Report is the changing kaleidoscope of issues.  A message of hope and economic factors lifted Bill Clinton to the Presidency and kept him there.  Security issues and moral questions ensured re-election for Bush.  Immigration and Iraq might be the decisive factors in 2008.  McCain's support for the White House's troops surge - which John Edwards was quick to dub the 'McCain doctrine' - and for the President's immigration reform package have seen his candidacy on the brink of complete collapse.  He has had to lay off most of his key campaign operatives and his campaign is almost bankrupt.  If most issues that are moving up the salience league favour the Democrats there is one issue that could give Giuliani a big boost; crime.  For reasons that are not entirely clear crime is growing in a lot of US cities.  Mr Zero Tolerance might benefit from that issue's prominence.

Brown and Miliband "resolute" in determination to work with Bush

New British Foreign Secretary David Miliband (pictured on the right in Downing Street, with new junior foreign minister, Mark Malloch Brown) has acted to reassure all Atlanticists that the new Brown-led British Government would not be distancing itself from America in general or Bush, in particular.  On page two of Britain's best-selling Sunday newspaper, the News of the World, Mr Miliband wrote:

"With a new Brown government some people are looking for evidence that our alliance is breaking up. There isn't any and there won't be any. Nothing has changed. Our strongest bilateral relationship is with the USA.

In the real world the US is the richest country, it has the most powerful military forces and it is driven forward by optimism and entrepreneurship - values the world needs.  In the real world we are stronger together than apart."

Speaking to the BBC earlier today the Foreign Secretary said that the Brown administration's "commitment to work with the American government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, is resolute."  That will be a relief to the White House which has seen Republican senators lose confidence in the Iraq surge in recent days and Team Bush know, as The Spectator's James Forsyth has speculated, that Gordon Brown has the power to fatally damage his last remaining hopes for success in Iraq.

Miliband's reassuring intervention follows worrying signs that more junior Labour ministers were distancing themselves from Bush's America.  Both Mark Malloch Brown (a new junior foreign minister) and Douglas Alexander (Secretary of State for International Development) had appeared to suggest a much more multilateralist, UN-centred approach to foreign policy decision-making.  The Opposition Conservatives have offered little robustness either.  Only today Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague repeated calls for a "solid, not slavish" relationship with America - feeding those who believe that Britain is too close to America - and underlined Tory opposition to the surge strategy.

Before Mr Miliband's article appeared Gordon Brown had already sought to steady White House nerves.  "We will not," the Prime Minister said, "allow people to separate us from the US in dealing with common challenges that we face around the world. I think people have got to remember that the relationship between Britain and America and a British prime minister and an American president is built on things that we share  the same enduring values, about the importance of liberty, opportunity, the dignity of the individual  and I will continue to work as Tony Blair did very closely with the American administration."  The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff has written to every member of his Cabinet to underline the importance he attaches to good transatlantic relations.

Both the US and UK are unfortunately moving towards greater faith in the United Nations.   John O'Sullivan dealt with the dangers  of that drift in yesterday's Daily Telegraph:

"The new Washington-London convergence is around the idea of leaving these decisions to bodies like the UN - and to fellows like Malloch Brown, Alexander, and "the tranzis" (short for "transnational progressives").  If you want to know the likely result, ask the people of Darfur and Rwanda. Of course, you'll need a spiritualist medium if you expect a reply."

In his article Mr O'Sullivan reminded us of the main reasons why the special relationship will endure:

"The special relationship is rooted in two things. First, because Britain and the US (and Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India) share a common language, culture, and legal and political traditions, they tend to see the world in much the same way. The "Anglosphere" countries believe in a liberal international order and are more prepared to uphold it by force than other liberal powers.

Second, since 1941 Britain and the US (and, again, countries such as Australia, Canada, etc.) have developed practices of mutual cooperation in fields as various as war, trade, electronic spying, investment, and international institution-building.  These suit both (or all) countries very well. The British armed forces and defence industry have benefited enormously from their intimate relationship with larger and more technically advanced partners in the US. It is one reason why Britain is the single most important military power in Europe (even under a penny-pinching Labour government)."

Related link: McCain touts democratic alternative to the United Nations

Al-Qaeda warns Britain to expect "very precise response" to recent honouring of Salman Rushdie

Overnight Britain had a video warning from al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri that his terrorist group was preparing a "very precise response" to the recent knighthood for Salman Rushdie.  Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Dan Hannan supplied BritainAndAmerica with this reaction:

“Whenever something terrible happens, it is human nature to fit events into your existing belief system. If you are already convinced that Britain should not be allied to the United States, you will see terrorism as a response to our foreign policy choices. If you already believe that inequality is the worst problem in the modern world, you will tell yourself that “poverty breeds violence”.
   
The trouble is that the terrorists themselves evince only a marginal interest in these questions. We’d be better off taking them at their word. When they say that their real enemy is Western liberalism, we ought to listen carefully. After all, Osama bin Laden never cited Israel or Iraq among his grievances until comparatively recently: he was responding, as it were, to the Michael Moore interpretation of his actions. And, as this new statement reminds us, modern Islamist terrorism has had domestic British freedoms in its sights for far longer than our soldiers in the Middle East.
   
Yes, alright, foreign policy might be an aggravating factor at the margins. The radicals occasionally cite Chechnya, the Balfour declaration, the Crusades, the loss of al-Andalus. But when they say that their ultimate objective is to replace our way of life with a different way of life, we ought to believe them.”

Related link: Dan Hannan on terrorism being 'a middle class pursuit'

BBC reports that US tactics in Iraq may be beginning to work just as Washington prepares to give up

The BBC has not been a supporter of the Iraq war so it is quite something when its World Affairs Editor John Simpson concludes that America
might finally be pursuing the right tactics in Iraq.  Mr Simpson made his conclusion at the end of a report on BBC1's main evening news bulletin.  After interviewing General David Petraeus, the Commander of US troops in Iraq, the BBC journalist said that the real battle was no longer in cities like Baquba which American troops had just liberated from Al-Qeada but in Washington where patience was running out.

General Petraeus said that the kind of counter-insurgency operation now underway usually took nine to ten years but his hearts and minds approach to building security in Iraq had only just begun.  Mr Simpson contrasted the liberation of Baquba where "only" eleven Iraqi civilians had been killed with the situation in Fallujah where large-scale civilian casualties had hardened Sunni opinion against the coalition.  The people of Baquba had also grown tired of the suffocating rule of Al-Qaeda and welcomed the arrival of the Americans.

The Simpson report was not all positive.  He noted the tendency, for example, of insurgents to direct their terrorism towards areas which stretched US forces were not targeting.  He did say, however, that the extra 29,000 US troops were, perhaps, using the right tactics but two years too late.

April 2007 link: General Petraeus progress reports from Baghdad

Combating anti-Americanism

Happy 4th July to our US readers!

This seems a good day to launch a new BritainAndAmerica.com initiative.

For reasons outlined today by Lord Saatchi and that are all too obvious from opinion polls, America is not as loved as this website would like it to be.  Maurice Saatchi has suggested his own solution to anti-Americanism.  In an occasional series we would like to do the same on this site.

We invite readers of this blog to help write short essays on ways of combating anti-Americanism.

Here a few random thoughts on the type of articles that could be written:

• When Americans defend America it can appear self-interested.  Non-Americans who respect the USA need to come together to run campaigns and build institutions that ensure a pro-American voice is heard within the media and in other opinion-forming circles.
• There needs to be more exploration of the alternatives to US leadership.  What would the world look like if China was the hegemonic power or if the United Nations made all major geopolitical decisions?
• America needs to be more generous to the developing world - opening its markets and increasing its development spending.
• American interventions need to be clearly humanitarian - as well as intervening for reasons of security there should also be action against the kind of slaughter we saw in Rwanda and now in Darfur.
• A new President will arrest anti-Americanism by presenting a new image to the world.
• Hollywood should choose to return to making Capra-esque films that portray a more positive image of America.
• America needs to invest in much better public diplomacy and improve the quality of its Ambassadors.  It also needs to engage more seriously with the BBC and other global media giants that sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, feed anti-Americanism.

If you are interested in writing one of these pieces - or in suggesting a different way of addressing anti-Americanism - please email us.  We would also be interested in any ideas for more films like our own 'A world without America'.